World Applied Sciences Journal 12 (Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based Society): 21-26, 2011

ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2011

Knowledge Management Practices (KMP) and Academic Performance

in Universiti Teknologi Mara (UITM) Terengganu, Malaysia
1
Norrini Muhammad, 2Baharom Ab. Rahman, 1Wan Zuhaila Abd Rahman,
3
Asma’ Rashidah Idris, 1Sabiroh Md Sabri and 4Kamaruzaman Jusoff

1
Faculty of Office Management and Technology, Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu,
23000 Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Office Management and Technology,Universiti Teknologi MARA Kampus Puncak Alam,
42300 Bandar Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu,
23000 Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia
4
Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract: Knowledge management is one of the significant fields in the current organization in order to improve
the performance. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between knowledge management
practices and academic performance in public institution of higher learning. A questionnaire was used as the
main instrument for the data collection. A total of 100 respondents answered the questionnaires which
represented 54% of response rate. It was found that knowledge management practices namely knowledge
generation, knowledge codification, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization had positive and significant
relationship with academic performance. Thus, in order to achieve higher academic performance, UiTM
Terengganu has to ensure that the knowledge management practices were excellent.

Key words:Knowledge Management (KM) Knowledge Generation Knowledge Codification Knowledge

Sharing Knowledge Utilization

INTRODUCTION management practices and academic performance in

Many studies in business industries had identified
a number of problems in Knowledge Management (KM)
initiatives, which contributed to the poor performance of
many KM functions such as an over emphasis on
technology and the codification of information; the
separation of knowledge from how it is used; difficulties
in storing and transferring tacit knowledge; lack of
understanding of the context in which knowledge is used;
and a focus on specific practices over underlying
philosophies [1, 2]. Knowledge management has been
investigated at business industrials and high schools
level but, there have been no studies done to investigate
knowledge management practices at a public institution
of higher learning level. The purpose of this study was to
investigate the relationship between knowledge
MARA University of Technology (UiTM) Terengganu,
Dungun Campus. In the context of this study, two
objectives had been formulated as follow:
To investigate the types of knowledge management
practices which are most emphasized in UiTM
Terengganu.
To investigate the relationship between knowledge
management practices and academic performance in
UiTM Terengganu.
Definition of Knowledge: Knowledge has become the
important capital in the present age and hence the
success to any organization lies in using it. As a result,
many organizations adopt knowledge management (KM)
to improve the performance. Thus, the aim of knowledge

Corresponding Author: Norrini Muhammad, Faculty of Office Management and Technology, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 23000
Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia.
Tel: +60-9-8403983, Fax: +60-9-8403777, E-mail: norri5282@tganu.uitm.edu.my .
21
 World Appl. Sci. J., 12 (Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based Society): 21-26, 2011
management is to continuously improve an organization’s
performance through the improvement and sharing of
organizational knowledge throughout the organization.
Knowledge is an organized combination of data,
assimilated with a set of rules, procedures and operations
learnt through experience and practice [3, 4]. On the other
hand, Gorelick and Tantawy-Monsou [5], define
knowledge as the know -how, experience, insight and
capabilities that assist teams and individuals in making
correct and rapid decisions, taking action and creating
new capabilities. The knowledge can be intangible, fluid,
personal, elusive, invisible, immeasurable and ever
evolving [5].
The classification of knowledge falls into two
categories namely tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit
knowledge is what we know but cannot explain [3, 6].
This form of knowledge; 1) is embodied in mental
processes; 2) originates from practices and experiences;
3) is expressed through ability applications; and 4) is
transferred in the form of learning by doing and learning
by watching [3, 7]. Eucker [8] states that tacit knowledge
consists of ‘know-how’, ‘know-what’ and ‘know-who’
that someone acquire and accumulate through practical
experience, that they are often not even aware that they
possess and that cannot really be learned in any other
way. In fact, it is rare to find solutions to complex
problems that are not dependent upon a significant
amount of tacit knowledge [8]. In contrast, according to
Badruddin [9], explicit knowledge could be expressed in
words and numbers and shared from data, scientific
formula, product specifications, manuals, universal
principles and so forth. It can be created, written down,
transferred, or transmitted among organizational units
verbally or through computer programs, patents, diagrams
and information technologies [3, 7, 10].
Knowledge Management: According to Marques and
Simon [11], knowledge management practices refer to a
more practical and perceptible level of research. From
this dimension, knowledge management can be viewed
as an organizational innovation involving important
changes in the introduction of the strategy and in
traditional management practices. Knowledge
management has emerged as an important field for
practice and research in information systems [12].
Knowledge management involves four key steps of
creating/generating knowledge, representing/storing
knowledge, accessing/using/re-using knowledge and
disseminating/transferring knowledge [13-16].
22
Knowledge Management in Practise: This study adopts
a framework for the knowledge management process
developed by Zaim et al. [17]. Through this conceptual
framework, knowledge management is composed of
four main processes: knowledge generation and
development; knowledge codification and storage;
knowledge transfer and sharing; and knowledge
utilization. However, for the purpose of this study, some
changes had been made to simplify the process and to
suit a new purpose for this study by using a single term
for each practice. Therefore, the four processes which
had been modified were Knowledge Generation,
Knowledge Codification, Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Utilization.
Knowledge Generation (KG): Knowledge generation
concerns the practices of collecting or creation of
new knowledge. Other terms that are being used
are acquire, create [3, 18] and identify [19, 20].
The generation of new ideas and innovations in
the firm, due to a better use of knowledge, could
have an effect on the improvement of processes [11].
In the same way, an improvement in processes perfects
employees’ capabilities. Hence, knowledge creation is a
learning curve for the individual, as well as organization
[19].
Knowledge Codification (KC): Knowledge codification
concern the practices of codifying or storage of new
knowledge. Other terms that are being used are
organize [3, 20], store [19] and documentation [18].
According to Baskerville and Dulipovice [12],
knowledge codification involves the meticulous discovery
of critical tacit knowledge that the organization has
created, learned, or organized. Once discovered, this
knowledge must then be articulated in a form that can be
absorbed by others in the organization that could use the
knowledge [12].
Knowledge Sharing (KS): Knowledge sharing concerns
the practices of exchange of knowledge between the
source of knowledge and the recipient of knowledge.
Other terms that are being used are disseminate [19, 20]
and transfer [3, 12, 18]. As Taylor [21] states, knowledge
sharing arises from individual’s efforts to transfer
knowledge to others within the organization. Successful
sharing also depends on the recipient’s ability and
willingness to learn [21].
 World Appl. Sci. J., 12 (Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based Society): 21-26, 2011
Knowledge Utilization (KU): Knowledge utilization
concerns the practices of using of knowledge that has
been stored in organization. Other terms that are being
used are application [3, 18], implemented [19] and reuse
[18]. Users utilize information and knowledge in a variety
of ways for different purposes. According to Jamaliah
[22], knowledge utilization involves using and re-using
knowledge to bring solutions to problems, reduce
knowledge gaps and inform decision making. For
knowledge to impact organizational performance, it has to
be used to support the firm’s processes [23].
Current Km Practice in Uitm Terengganu: Information
Services Department: One of the knowledge management
practices in UiTM Terengganu could be referred to
Information Services Department. The Information
Services Department is responsible in developing and
maintaining a collections of none book in nature.
Reference and information services are provided by all
libraries in the system. The library also provides a variety
of user education programs to enable users to utilize the
library to its maximum potential.
ILMU: On the other hand, the library system called
Integrated Library Management Utility (ILMU) is a
library information and knowledge management software.
ILMU is derived from the need to provide a seamless but
integrated information environment representing a
modern library system. The end-product is a major step
towards a true digital library. ILMU utilizes client-
server technology and accommodates multimedia; OLE,
event-driven program execution and Online Databases
Collections (ODBC) connectivity, in addition to conform
to international classification and standardization
schemes.
Academic Affairs Department: Apart from that,
knowledge management practices as applied in
Academic Affairs Department is referred to the knowledge
that has been received from the top management which
then will be disseminated to all staffs depending on the
requirement. For example, the instructions received from
the circular will be shared with the rest of the staffs in
UiTM Terengganu. This information is distributed to all
staff using Groupware called ‘Lotus Notes’ in which they
can receive and send email to others within and outside of
UiTM Terengganu. Besides, this information is also
shared through memo posted on bulletin board.
23
Colloquium: For the academic staffs, the colloquium
session is organized to share the information to other
staffs. This session is held on every Sunday, Wednesday
and Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The presentation
of colloquium is aimed to share the variety forms of
academic information, current issues, findings and
experiences gathered from previous research. During
the session, experiences and knowledge that the
participants get from attending workshops, seminars,
conferences, exhibitions and courses are being shared
with other staffs.
ISIS: Another practice related to knowledge management
is the utilization of ISIS system. This system solely meant
for staffs to view and feed the data on every students
ranging from personal information, examination results,
student status and any information related to students’
record. The academic staffs are provided with the
username and password to access the information.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this study, the research had developed conceptual
framework as adopted from past research conducted
by Zaim et al. [17]. The conceptual framework came out
with the independent and dependent variables as
illustrated in Figure 1.
The independent variables in this framework were the
knowledge management practices where they consisted
of four processes namely; Knowledge Generation,
Knowledge Codification, Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Utilization whereas the dependent variable for
this study was academic performance.
Research Design: This study was a correlation research
due to nature of the study to see the relationship that
exists among variable investigated [24]. Data were
obtained from primary and secondary sources.
Fig. 1: The Conceptual Framework shows the
Relationship between Knowledge Management
Practices and Academic Performance
 World Appl. Sci. J., 12 (Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based Society): 21-26, 2011

Table 1: Sections in Questionnaires

SECTION A: Demographic background. This demographic background contains several items such as gender, age, highest educational level, years of
working experience working in UiTM, teaching position and department/faculty.
SECTION B: Request for information to identify the knowledge generation as applied in UiTM Terengganu. (Questions were adapted from Khalil et al.,
[18] and Dorrach, [25].
SECTION C: Request for information to identify knowledge codification as applied in UiTM Terengganu. (Questions were adapted from Khalil et al., [18]
and Al-Hawari, [26].
SECTION D: Request for information to identify knowledge sharing as applied in UiTM Terengganu. (Questions were adapted from Khalil et al., [18] and
Dorrach, [25].
SECTION E: Request for information to identify knowledge utilization as applied in UiTM Terengganu. (Questions were adapted from Al-Hawari, [26].
SECTION F: Request for measurement of quality objectives implementation in UiTM Terengganu.
SECTION G: Request for level of implementation of knowledge management in UiTM Terengganu.

Primary sources refer to the information obtained from
individual, experts and other people. Secondary sources
on the other hand, refer to information gathered from the
sources that already existed such as internet, journals,
magazines and newspaper cutting. The primary data for
this study was the information from the respondents,
gathered from the questionnaires. The questionnaires in
this study contain closed-ended questions using a 5-
point Likert scale. The 5-point Likert scale for this study
adhered this distribution of values: 5 = Strongly Agree, 4
= Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly
Disagree. The seven sections included in the
questionnaires are as showed in Table 1.
Data Analysis: The data collection in the study was
analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS). The analysis involved descriptive
statistics which include frequency, mean and standard
deviation. In addition, the findings of the study and
presentation of the data were supported with the
illustration of tables. The data was also analyzed by using
Pearson Correlation to identify the relationship and to test
hypotheses between variables.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Questionnaires were personally distributed to 186
academic staffs in UiTM Terengganu. From 186
questionnaires distributed, 108 were returned. However,
out of the 108 returned questionnaires, only 100 were
usable for analysis and therefore, the effective response
rate was about 54%. Table 2 below shows the details.
Table 3 illustrates the descriptive statistical
analysis for knowledge management practices (KMP)
study variables namely the Knowledge Generation,
Knowledge Codification, Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Utilization. The analysis of descriptive
statistics comprises of the minimum, maximum, mean
and standard deviation. The mean and standard
deviation as stated by Sekaran [24] is used in this study,
the mean is a measure of central tendency that offers a
general picture of the data without unnecessarily
inundating one with each of the observations in a data
set. Meanwhile, the standard deviation is another measure
of dispersion for interval and ratio scaled data and it
offers an index of the spread of a distribution or the
variability in the data.

Table 2: Rate of Survey Return in Actual Study

Total of Questionnaires Usable
Academic Staff No. of Questionnaires Distributed No. of Questionnaires Collected No. of Questionnaires Unusable (Percentage of respond rate)
Female 125 67 3 64
Male 61 41 5 36
Total 186 108 8 100(54%)
*78 questionnaires not returned at all

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Knowledge Management Practices (n=100)

Knowledge Management Practices N Min Max M SD
Knowledge Generation 100 2 5 3.81 .496
Knowledge Codification 100 2 5 3.78 .500
Knowledge Sharing 100 3 5 3.79 .480
Knowledge Utilization 100 2 5 3.84 .561
Overall Knowledge Management Practices 100 2 5 3.81 .458

24
 World Appl. Sci. J., 12 (Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based Society): 21-26, 2011
Table 4: Correlation of Knowledge Management Practices and Academic Performance (n=100)
KMP
Quality Objectives Pearson Correlation .673**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 100
As shown in the Table 3, the mean scores for
the four KMPs namely, Knowledge Generation,
Knowledge Codification, Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Utilization range from 3.79 to 3.84. On the
other hand, the standard deviation scores for all the
practices of knowledge management range from 0.46 to
0.56. The findings described that the mean ratings for
each of the practices in descending order from high to low
were the Knowledge Utilization (M = 3.84, SD = 0.561),
Knowledge Generation (M = 3.81, SD = .496),
Knowledge Sharing (M = 3.79, SD = 0.480) and
Knowledge Codification (M = 3.79, SD = 0.500). The
overall knowledge management practices was (M = 3.81,
SD = 0.458).
The relationship between knowledge management
practices and academic performance was investigated
using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r).
The Bivariate correlation was subjected to one-tailed
test of significance from two difference levels. Table 4
presents the relationship between knowledge
management practices and academic performance.
Table 4 indicates that the knowledge management
practices (KMP) significantly and positively correlated
with academic performance (r= 0.673, p<0.01). This result
is similar to the studies done by Zack et al. [27] who
found KM practices were to be directly related to
organizational performance. Meanwhile, the correlation
between the four KMPs namely Knowledge Generation,
Knowledge Codification, Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Utilization were also significantly and
positively correlated with one another as well as with
academic performance.
From the table also, it is found that there is positive
and significant relationship between Knowledge
Generation and academic performance (r= 0.578, p<0.01).
The relationship between Knowledge Codification is
also positive and significant with academic performance
(r= 0.616, p<0.01). Apart from that, Table 4 also shows that
there is a positive and significant relationship between
Knowledge Sharing and academic performance (r= 0.624,
p<0.01). Lastly, Table 4 shows Knowledge Utilization
significantly and positively related with academic
performance (r= 0.602, p>0.01). Therefore, the relationship
between knowledge management practices and academic
performance can be established.
25
KG KC KS KU
.578** .616** .624** .602**
.000 .000 .000 .000
100 100 100 100
CONCLUSION
This study found that all of the four of knowledge
management practices were emphasized in UiTM
Terengganu. The mean score values for the four practices
were in the range from 3.78 to 3.84. Knowledge Utilization
(M = 3.84, SD = 0.561) was found to be the most practice
emphasized compared with Knowledge Generation,
Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Codification in UiTM
Terengganu. Therefore, it can be concluded that most of
the academic staffs perceived practice knowledge
utilization within their organization. Also, it was disclosed
that knowledge management practices have positive and
significant relationship with academic performance
(r=0.673, p <0.01). The existence of the relationship
between knowledge management practices and academic
performance shows the better practices made the more it
will enhance the academic performance. Thus, in order to
achieve higher academic performance, UiTM Terengganu
has to ensure that the knowledge management practices
are excellent.
UiTM Terengganu can achieve high impact on
academic performance if it emphasizes effective
knowledge managment practices. As for example,
improvement may involve the execution of knowledge
management practices namely, Knowledge Generation,
Knowledge Codification, Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Utilization. Results showed that all practices
had positive and significant relationships with academic
performance.
REFERENCES
1. Smith, H.A., J.D. McKeen and S. Singh, 2006. Making
knowledge work: five principles for action-oriented
knowledge management. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 4: 116-124.
2. Pfeffer, J. and R. Sutton, 1999. Knowing
‘what’ to do is not enough: turning knowledge
into action. California Management Review,
42(1): 83-108.
3. Kaweevisultrakul, C. and P. Chan, 2007. Impact of
Cultural Barriers on Knowledge Management
Implementation: Evidence from Thailand. J. American
Academy of Business, 11(1): 303.
 World Appl. Sci. J., 12 (Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based Society): 21-26, 2011
4. Keskin, H., 2005. The Relationships Between Explicit
and Tacit Oriented KM Strategy and Firm
Performance. J. American Academy of Business
Cambridge, 7(1): 169-175.
5. Gorelick, C. and B. Tantawy-Monsou, 2005. For
performance through learning, knowledge
management is the critical practice. The Learning
Organization, 12(2): 125.
6. De Long, D. and L. Pahey, 2000. Diagnosing Cultural
Barriers to Knowledge Management. The Academy
of Management Executive, 14(4): 113-127.
7. Choi, B. and H. Lee, 2003. An Empirical
Investigation of KM Styles and Their Effect on
Corporate Performance. Information & Management,
40(5): 403-417.
8. Euker, T.R., 2007. Understanding the Impact of
Tacit Knowledge Loss. Knowledge Management
Review, 10(1).
9. Badruddin A. Rahman, 2004. Knowledge
Management Initiatives: Exploratory Study in
Malaysia. J. American Academy of Business, 4(1/2):
330.
10. Perez, J.R. and P.O. Pablos, 2003. KM and
Organizational Competitiveness: A Framework for
Human Capital Analysis. J. Knowledge Management,
pp: 82-91.
11. Marques, D.P. and F.J.G. Simon, 2006. The effect of
knowledge management practices on firm
performance. J. Knowledge Management,
10(3): 143-156.
12. Baskerville, R. and A. Dulipovici, 2006. The
theoretical foundation of knowledge management.
Knowledge Management Research and Practice,
4: 83-105.
13. Wickramasinghe, N., 2006. Knowledge Creation:
Process of Knowledge Management. Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Publishing.
14. Markus, L., 2001. Toward a theory of knowledge
reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and
factors in reuse success. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18(1): 57-93.
15. Alavi, M. and D. Leidner, 2001. Review: Knowledge
management and knowledge management systems:
Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
Quarterly, 25(1): 107-136.
26
16. Davernport, T. and Prusak, 1998. Working
Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
17. Zaim, H., E. Tatoglu and S. Zaim, 2007. Performance
of knowledge management practices: a causal
analysis. J. Knowledge Management, 11(6): 54-67.
18. Khalil, O., A. Claudio and A. Seliem, 2006. Knowledge
Management: The Case of the Acushnet Company.
S.A.M. Advanced Management J., 71(3): 34.
19. Egbu, C.O., S. Hari and S.H. Renukappa, 2005.
Knowledge management for sustainable
competitiveness in small and medium surveying
practices. Structural Survey, 23(1): 7-21.
20. Hussain, F., C. Lucas and M.A. Ali, 2004. Managing
Knowledge Effectively. J. Knowledge Management
Practice.
21. Taylor, E.Z., 2006. The Effect of Incentives on
Knowledge Sharing in Computer-Mediated
Communication: An Experimental Investigation. J.
Information Systems, 20(1): 103-116.
22. Jamaliah Abdul Hamid, 2008. Knowledge strategies of
school administrators and teachers. International J.
Education Management, 22(3): 259-268.
23. Mills, A.M. and T.A. Smith, 2011. Knowledge
management and organizational performance: a
decomposed view. J. Knowledge Management,
15(1): 156-171.
24. Sekaran, U., 2006. Research Methods for Business:
A Skill Building Approach. 4th ed. New Delhi: Sharada
Offset Press.
25. Dorrach, J., 2003. Developing a measure of
knowledge management behaviors and practices. J.
Knowledge Management, 7(5): 41-54.
26. Al-Hawari, M., 2004. Knowledge management styles
and performance: a knowledge space model from
theoretical and empirical perspectives, from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/243.
27. Zack, M., J. McKeen and S. Singh, 2009. Knowledge
management and organizational performance: an
exploratory analysis. J. Knowledge Management,
13(6): 392-409.